Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.

It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.

Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.

Duplexes don’t pencil. It’s a waste of time to talk about duplexes. They’ll need to build triples or quads to make it work. It’s great except for people who want to buy a townhouse or detached SFH. You know, the people who planning says we need to keep in the county by having cheaper housing. Most of them aren’t leaving for apartments.

Sounds good.

I live in a neighborhood that would be upzoned (by the way! Not everywhere! Just within a mile of transit, yes?). I am very in support of this. We have some duplexes and triplexes grandfathered in already and…the world hasn’t ended. We even have some low rise apartment buildings that date from before…across the street from my house. Again, the world has not ended. We have more neighbors on our street, it’s vibrant, and good people can live here. Walking distance to the elementary and middle schools - some restaurants scattered around - it is a diverse neighborhood, a great place to live. I’m here to report that the world doesn’t end when there are duplexes, triplexes, townhomes or even apartments in amongst detached houses.

Do let us know where the people in duplexes and triplexes are going to park in your neighborhood (in mine, I can barely get a parking space on the street, even in a neighborhood with single-family homes) or how your local school is going to accommodate the increased population of kids--because my kids are at MCPS and I can tell you that a class with 27 kids in lower elementary school, and 34 kids in middle school does not result in an optimal educational environment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we advocate for a referendum given the lack of prior transparency and clarity about these plans?

Yes. It would have to wait until the next election cycle unless some authority could be convinced to order a special election (and that isn't going to happen). They dropped the report, with all the more expansive aspects that had not previously been made public, just at the time it would he impossible to get an issue on the November ballot, and they are aiming to have the legislation passed before a referendum at the next cycle could come into force. Once there, they can campaign against such a ballot item more effectively, given the legal / liability hazard created by the then-enshrined additional development rights.

Uncertain if challenge based on open meetings requirements could upend it or cause the timeline to move, but a multi-pronged approach may be needed to counter the multi-pronged approach that is bringing this on.

This change is literally irreversible (assuming it is passed legally) due to changes in MD law that ban single family zoning for areas where it did not exist prior to the cutoff date. If single family zoning is eliminated in MOCO, this area will no longer be grandfathered under the law and it will be impossible to establish again. This is an irreversible decisions to increase the allowable density through the county by a factor of 4x plus throughout the county.

No such law exists.

You are lying HB 538 passed this year makes this change irreversible in many areas. Eliminating single family zoning makes MOCO ineligible for the grandfather clause that exempts areas zoned single family before 1/1/24 from bonus density provisions in this law. Eliminating single family zoning green lights developments that exceed 8x the existing allowable density in many areas due to stacking of these bonus density laws. We https://dhcd.maryland.gov/TurningTheKey/Documents/HB538-FAQ.pdf

Where does that law eliminate SFZ? Point me to the provision that says that any county or municipality cannot create a zone that is SF?

Is this like a weird YIMBY half truth? Some pendant trick of semantics? A silly gotcha?

However, I’ll bite just because I’m bored.

Why would the county create a SFH ZONE when they are actively working to eliminate SFH only zoning.

The assertion is that it cannot be undone at some future point. For example, should the council change over, should the policies demonstrably fail, should the residents effectively advocate for reversal, etc.

That assertion is false. There is no state law that prevents a county or municipality from undoing these changes.

You are either lying or are incredibly misinformed. The law absolutely does prevent this from being undone in some situations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we advocate for a referendum given the lack of prior transparency and clarity about these plans?

Yes. It would have to wait until the next election cycle unless some authority could be convinced to order a special election (and that isn't going to happen). They dropped the report, with all the more expansive aspects that had not previously been made public, just at the time it would he impossible to get an issue on the November ballot, and they are aiming to have the legislation passed before a referendum at the next cycle could come into force. Once there, they can campaign against such a ballot item more effectively, given the legal / liability hazard created by the then-enshrined additional development rights.

Uncertain if challenge based on open meetings requirements could upend it or cause the timeline to move, but a multi-pronged approach may be needed to counter the multi-pronged approach that is bringing this on.

This change is literally irreversible (assuming it is passed legally) due to changes in MD law that ban single family zoning for areas where it did not exist prior to the cutoff date. If single family zoning is eliminated in MOCO, this area will no longer be grandfathered under the law and it will be impossible to establish again. This is an irreversible decisions to increase the allowable density through the county by a factor of 4x plus throughout the county.

No such law exists.

You are lying HB 538 passed this year makes this change irreversible in many areas. Eliminating single family zoning makes MOCO ineligible for the grandfather clause that exempts areas zoned single family before 1/1/24 from bonus density provisions in this law. Eliminating single family zoning green lights developments that exceed 8x the existing allowable density in many areas due to stacking of these bonus density laws. We https://dhcd.maryland.gov/TurningTheKey/Documents/HB538-FAQ.pdf

Where does that law eliminate SFZ? Point me to the provision that says that any county or municipality cannot create a zone that is SF?

Is this like a weird YIMBY half truth? Some pendant trick of semantics? A silly gotcha?

However, I’ll bite just because I’m bored.

Why would the county create a SFH ZONE when they are actively working to eliminate SFH only zoning.

The assertion is that it cannot be undone at some future point. For example, should the council change over, should the policies demonstrably fail, should the residents effectively advocate for reversal, etc.

That assertion is false. There is no state law that prevents a county or municipality from undoing these changes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we advocate for a referendum given the lack of prior transparency and clarity about these plans?

Yes. It would have to wait until the next election cycle unless some authority could be convinced to order a special election (and that isn't going to happen). They dropped the report, with all the more expansive aspects that had not previously been made public, just at the time it would he impossible to get an issue on the November ballot, and they are aiming to have the legislation passed before a referendum at the next cycle could come into force. Once there, they can campaign against such a ballot item more effectively, given the legal / liability hazard created by the then-enshrined additional development rights.

Uncertain if challenge based on open meetings requirements could upend it or cause the timeline to move, but a multi-pronged approach may be needed to counter the multi-pronged approach that is bringing this on.

This change is literally irreversible (assuming it is passed legally) due to changes in MD law that ban single family zoning for areas where it did not exist prior to the cutoff date. If single family zoning is eliminated in MOCO, this area will no longer be grandfathered under the law and it will be impossible to establish again. This is an irreversible decisions to increase the allowable density through the county by a factor of 4x plus throughout the county.

No such law exists.

You are lying HB 538 passed this year makes this change irreversible in many areas. Eliminating single family zoning makes MOCO ineligible for the grandfather clause that exempts areas zoned single family before 1/1/24 from bonus density provisions in this law. Eliminating single family zoning green lights developments that exceed 8x the existing allowable density in many areas due to stacking of these bonus density laws. We https://dhcd.maryland.gov/TurningTheKey/Documents/HB538-FAQ.pdf

Where does that law eliminate SFZ? Point me to the provision that says that any county or municipality cannot create a zone that is SF?

Is this like a weird YIMBY half truth? Some pendant trick of semantics? A silly gotcha?

However, I’ll bite just because I’m bored.

Why would the county create a SFH ZONE when they are actively working to eliminate SFH only zoning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we advocate for a referendum given the lack of prior transparency and clarity about these plans?

Yes. It would have to wait until the next election cycle unless some authority could be convinced to order a special election (and that isn't going to happen). They dropped the report, with all the more expansive aspects that had not previously been made public, just at the time it would he impossible to get an issue on the November ballot, and they are aiming to have the legislation passed before a referendum at the next cycle could come into force. Once there, they can campaign against such a ballot item more effectively, given the legal / liability hazard created by the then-enshrined additional development rights.

Uncertain if challenge based on open meetings requirements could upend it or cause the timeline to move, but a multi-pronged approach may be needed to counter the multi-pronged approach that is bringing this on.

This change is literally irreversible (assuming it is passed legally) due to changes in MD law that ban single family zoning for areas where it did not exist prior to the cutoff date. If single family zoning is eliminated in MOCO, this area will no longer be grandfathered under the law and it will be impossible to establish again. This is an irreversible decisions to increase the allowable density through the county by a factor of 4x plus throughout the county.

No such law exists.

You are lying HB 538 passed this year makes this change irreversible in many areas. Eliminating single family zoning makes MOCO ineligible for the grandfather clause that exempts areas zoned single family before 1/1/24 from bonus density provisions in this law. Eliminating single family zoning green lights developments that exceed 8x the existing allowable density in many areas due to stacking of these bonus density laws. We https://dhcd.maryland.gov/TurningTheKey/Documents/HB538-FAQ.pdf

Where does that law eliminate SFZ? Point me to the provision that says that any county or municipality cannot create a zone that is SF?

Is this like a weird YIMBY half truth? Some pendant trick of semantics? A silly gotcha?

However, I’ll bite just because I’m bored.

Why would the county create a SFH ZONE when they are actively working to eliminate SFH only zoning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.

It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.

Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.

Duplexes don’t pencil. It’s a waste of time to talk about duplexes. They’ll need to build triples or quads to make it work. It’s great except for people who want to buy a townhouse or detached SFH. You know, the people who planning says we need to keep in the county by having cheaper housing. Most of them aren’t leaving for apartments.

Sounds good.

I live in a neighborhood that would be upzoned (by the way! Not everywhere! Just within a mile of transit, yes?). I am very in support of this. We have some duplexes and triplexes grandfathered in already and…the world hasn’t ended. We even have some low rise apartment buildings that date from before…across the street from my house. Again, the world has not ended. We have more neighbors on our street, it’s vibrant, and good people can live here. Walking distance to the elementary and middle schools - some restaurants scattered around - it is a diverse neighborhood, a great place to live. I’m here to report that the world doesn’t end when there are duplexes, triplexes, townhomes or even apartments in amongst detached houses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.

It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.

Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.

Duplexes don’t pencil. It’s a waste of time to talk about duplexes. They’ll need to build triples or quads to make it work. It’s great except for people who want to buy a townhouse or detached SFH. You know, the people who planning says we need to keep in the county by having cheaper housing. Most of them aren’t leaving for apartments.

Sounds good.

I live in a neighborhood that would be upzoned (by the way! Not everywhere! Just within a mile of transit, yes?). I am very in support of this. We have some duplexes and triplexes grandfathered in already and…the world hasn’t ended. We even have some low rise apartment buildings that date from before…across the street from my house. Again, the world has not ended. We have more neighbors on our street, it’s vibrant, and good people can live here. Walking distance to the elementary and middle schools - some restaurants scattered around - it is a diverse neighborhood, a great place to live. I’m here to report that the world doesn’t end when there are duplexes, triplexes, townhomes or even apartments in amongst detached houses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.

It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.

Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.

Duplexes don’t pencil. It’s a waste of time to talk about duplexes. They’ll need to build triples or quads to make it work. It’s great except for people who want to buy a townhouse or detached SFH. You know, the people who planning says we need to keep in the county by having cheaper housing. Most of them aren’t leaving for apartments.

Sounds good.

I live in a neighborhood that would be upzoned (by the way! Not everywhere! Just within a mile of transit, yes?). I am very in support of this. We have some duplexes and triplexes grandfathered in already and…the world hasn’t ended. We even have some low rise apartment buildings that date from before…across the street from my house. Again, the world has not ended. We have more neighbors on our street, it’s vibrant, and good people can live here. Walking distance to the elementary and middle schools - some restaurants scattered around - it is a diverse neighborhood, a great place to live. I’m here to report that the world doesn’t end when there are duplexes, triplexes, townhomes or even apartments in amongst detached houses.

Aren't you scared the Blacks and Hispanics will take over?

…I am assuming that is sarcasm. Or rage bait.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we advocate for a referendum given the lack of prior transparency and clarity about these plans?

Yes. It would have to wait until the next election cycle unless some authority could be convinced to order a special election (and that isn't going to happen). They dropped the report, with all the more expansive aspects that had not previously been made public, just at the time it would he impossible to get an issue on the November ballot, and they are aiming to have the legislation passed before a referendum at the next cycle could come into force. Once there, they can campaign against such a ballot item more effectively, given the legal / liability hazard created by the then-enshrined additional development rights.

Uncertain if challenge based on open meetings requirements could upend it or cause the timeline to move, but a multi-pronged approach may be needed to counter the multi-pronged approach that is bringing this on.

This change is literally irreversible (assuming it is passed legally) due to changes in MD law that ban single family zoning for areas where it did not exist prior to the cutoff date. If single family zoning is eliminated in MOCO, this area will no longer be grandfathered under the law and it will be impossible to establish again. This is an irreversible decisions to increase the allowable density through the county by a factor of 4x plus throughout the county.

No such law exists.

You are lying HB 538 passed this year makes this change irreversible in many areas. Eliminating single family zoning makes MOCO ineligible for the grandfather clause that exempts areas zoned single family before 1/1/24 from bonus density provisions in this law. Eliminating single family zoning green lights developments that exceed 8x the existing allowable density in many areas due to stacking of these bonus density laws. We https://dhcd.maryland.gov/TurningTheKey/Documents/HB538-FAQ.pdf

Where does that law eliminate SFZ? Point me to the provision that says that any county or municipality cannot create a zone that is SF?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.

It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.

Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.

Duplexes don’t pencil. It’s a waste of time to talk about duplexes. They’ll need to build triples or quads to make it work. It’s great except for people who want to buy a townhouse or detached SFH. You know, the people who planning says we need to keep in the county by having cheaper housing. Most of them aren’t leaving for apartments.

Sounds good.

I live in a neighborhood that would be upzoned (by the way! Not everywhere! Just within a mile of transit, yes?). I am very in support of this. We have some duplexes and triplexes grandfathered in already and…the world hasn’t ended. We even have some low rise apartment buildings that date from before…across the street from my house. Again, the world has not ended. We have more neighbors on our street, it’s vibrant, and good people can live here. Walking distance to the elementary and middle schools - some restaurants scattered around - it is a diverse neighborhood, a great place to live. I’m here to report that the world doesn’t end when there are duplexes, triplexes, townhomes or even apartments in amongst detached houses.

Aren't you scared the Blacks and Hispanics will take over?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.

It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.

Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.

Duplexes don’t pencil. It’s a waste of time to talk about duplexes. They’ll need to build triples or quads to make it work. It’s great except for people who want to buy a townhouse or detached SFH. You know, the people who planning says we need to keep in the county by having cheaper housing. Most of them aren’t leaving for apartments.

Sounds good.

I live in a neighborhood that would be upzoned (by the way! Not everywhere! Just within a mile of transit, yes?). I am very in support of this. We have some duplexes and triplexes grandfathered in already and…the world hasn’t ended. We even have some low rise apartment buildings that date from before…across the street from my house. Again, the world has not ended. We have more neighbors on our street, it’s vibrant, and good people can live here. Walking distance to the elementary and middle schools - some restaurants scattered around - it is a diverse neighborhood, a great place to live. I’m here to report that the world doesn’t end when there are duplexes, triplexes, townhomes or even apartments in amongst detached houses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.

It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.

Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.

Duplexes don’t pencil. It’s a waste of time to talk about duplexes. They’ll need to build triples or quads to make it work. It’s great except for people who want to buy a townhouse or detached SFH. You know, the people who planning says we need to keep in the county by having cheaper housing. Most of them aren’t leaving for apartments.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we advocate for a referendum given the lack of prior transparency and clarity about these plans?

Yes. It would have to wait until the next election cycle unless some authority could be convinced to order a special election (and that isn't going to happen). They dropped the report, with all the more expansive aspects that had not previously been made public, just at the time it would he impossible to get an issue on the November ballot, and they are aiming to have the legislation passed before a referendum at the next cycle could come into force. Once there, they can campaign against such a ballot item more effectively, given the legal / liability hazard created by the then-enshrined additional development rights.

Uncertain if challenge based on open meetings requirements could upend it or cause the timeline to move, but a multi-pronged approach may be needed to counter the multi-pronged approach that is bringing this on.

This change is literally irreversible (assuming it is passed legally) due to changes in MD law that ban single family zoning for areas where it did not exist prior to the cutoff date. If single family zoning is eliminated in MOCO, this area will no longer be grandfathered under the law and it will be impossible to establish again. This is an irreversible decisions to increase the allowable density through the county by a factor of 4x plus throughout the county.

No such law exists.

You are lying HB 538 passed this year makes this change irreversible in many areas. Eliminating single family zoning makes MOCO ineligible for the grandfather clause that exempts areas zoned single family before 1/1/24 from bonus density provisions in this law. Eliminating single family zoning green lights developments that exceed 8x the existing allowable density in many areas due to stacking of these bonus density laws. We https://dhcd.maryland.gov/TurningTheKey/Documents/HB538-FAQ.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.

It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.

Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.

Duplexes don’t pencil. It’s a waste of time to talk about duplexes. They’ll need to build triples or quads to make it work. It’s great except for people who want to buy a townhouse or detached SFH. You know, the people who planning says we need to keep in the county by having cheaper housing. Most of them aren’t leaving for apartments.

Sounds good.